My office isn’t really set up for guests. There is a chair in the corner across the room from my desk. NCAA president Charlie Baker could sit over there as I compile one of my projected March Madness brackets for Fox Sports, but he wouldn’t have the greatest view. He’d learn a ton, though.
He might not see me wince when I get to the lines determining the final at-large entrants to the field, because his chair sits directly behind me. Even if I were talking over my shoulder, though, I could take him through the list of undistinguished teams fighting to gain the final eight or so positions in the 2026 March Madness field.
These are teams that, under the plan to expand to 76 teams – for which he has become the loudest advocate – would be in the tournament easily today.
He has an open invitation to learn how ludicrous his position is.
I know he’s probably not coming, though.
So he can read this.
MORE: SN’s latest forecast for NCAA tourney bracket
Let’s start with the last four teams in my most recent bracket would be be required to play an extra game in the NCAAs, in Dayton as part of what’s been known since 2011 as the First Four. We’ll look at their record in games against opponents categorized as Quad 1 (statistically the most difficult games to win) and Quad 2 (next level down) and other distinguishing features of their resume:
Auburn
Record: 15-13
Quad 1: 5-11
Quad 2: 2-2
Bad losses: Oklahoma? Really?
Overview: Auburn was only 14-12 before squeezing out a home victory against Kentucky. The Tigers gave back what they gained with that one by losing at SEC last-place Oklahoma by double digits. Only two teams in the more than 40 years of the expanded bracket era have made the field at two games over .500. The Tigers have six wins against teams that would be in the field today, but also 12 losses to such teams.
New Mexico
Record: 20-7
Quad 1: 1-5
Quad 2: 7-1
Bad losses: at No. 178 New Mexico State
Overview: The loss to the Aggies was a rivalry game, so perhaps one could “throw out the record books.” Maybe the Lobos would want to, given they’ve defeated only two teams projected to make the field – both as First Four selections.
Santa Clara
Record: 22-6
Quad 1: 1-4
Quad 2: 7-1
Bad losses: No. 310 Loyola Ramblers
Overview: Santa Clara lost both shots at Gonzaga the West Coast Conference provided, but did defeat league power Saint Mary’s at home. The Broncos get another shot at the Gaels on the road Wednesday.
VCU
Record: 21-7
Quad 1: 1-5
Quad 2: 4-2
Bad losses: None
Overview: VCU has played 28 games without earning a single win over a team in the projected at-large field.
Now look at the four teams that were closest to making the field.
USC
Record: 17-10
Quad 1: 2-7
Quad 2: 7-1
Bad losses: Oregon, Northwestern
Overview: The Trojans have been afflicted by injuries, with gifted freshman Alijah Arenas only returning recently from a preseason issue, star wing Chad Baker-Mazara missing three games and key guard Rodney Rice gone since the season’s sixth game. But they’ve lost as many games to sub-.500 opponents as they’ve beaten projected NCAA Tournament teams.
Ohio State
Record: 17-10
Quad 1: 0-9
Quad 2: 7-1
Bad losses: at No. 122 Pitt
Overview: North Carolina’s entry into the 2025 field with a single Quad 1 win was borderline scandalous; Ohio State doesn’t have any. The Buckeyes came close against North Carolina (one point), Nebraska (three points), Virginia (four points) and Michigan State (six points), but does close now count in college hoops?
TCU
Record: 18-10
Quad 1: 4-7
Quad 2: 3-1
Bad losses: No. 89 Notre Dame, at No. 117 Utah, No. 202 New Orleans
Overview: The Horned Frogs earned impressive wins over Florida, Iowa State and Wisconsin, but four of their losses are to teams with essentially no chance to make the field.
California
Record: 18-8
Quad 1: 4-5
Quad 2: 1-3
Bad losses: at No. 100 Kansas State
Overview: Quality wins over the Miami Hurricanes, North Carolina and UCLA are counterbalanced by four losses to teams that are not currently in the field, three of whom have little chance.
MORE: Darryn Peterson is leaving more questions than answers
The point about these eight teams isn’t that they can’t mount impressive late surges and wind up worthy of inclusion in the 68-team field for the 2028 season. Ohio State has games against Iowa, Purdue and Indiana, and possibly some opportunities in the Big Ten Tournament, and winning some significant portion of those could assure their worthiness of making it to March Madness.
The thing is, if the expansion plan were to be approved, all these teams barely would be sweating now. The Buckeyes? The absence of high-end victories wouldn’t be a problem. There are plenty of qualifying factors that would place them well ahead of such mid teams as Cincinnati and Stanford.
At the moment, Seton Hall could be considered six positions out of the field. With 76 teams, they would be safely inside. The Pirates have lost four times to teams with no shot at March Madness and have beaten just one team, NC State, likely to make it.
Why does the NCAA want to expand the field?
What possible impetus could there be for an expansion with these results? Why would Baker be so eager to push for this? Well, this is what some of his constituents want, those caring more about a contrived short-term payday and not about the health of the sport they’re operating. Politicians succeed by getting done what they’re appointed to do, not by explaining why some of the ideas are ridiculous, untenable or counterintuitive.
Baker told reporters earlier this month, “I think there’s some very good reasons to expand the tournament, so I would like to see it expand.” He didn’t bother with what those reasons were, other than to say he was “bummed” when 2024 Indiana State and Seton Hall missed the field. The Sycamores that year played five games against teams that made the field; they lost four. (They also lost a home game to No. 178 Illinois State).
See, there are no good reasons for 76. Right now, most of the final at-large teams wind up seeded on the No. 11 line. Of 180 teams seeded 11th since the bracket expanded in 1985, only 62 ever won a game against a higher-seeded opponent (34 percent). On the 12 and 13 lines, which is where additional teams would flow, it’s 57 of 164 (34.7 percent) and 33 of 161 (20 percent). Combined, those lines have produced six teams that reached the Final Four; that’s 1 percent.
There’s a very good reason, though, why Baker said, “we’re still talking” to broadcast partners about this expansion.
It’s because CBS and Turner obviously have no interest in paying for it.
And why would they?
They know it’s a foolish way to spend money. An average first-round NCAA Tournament game last season drew 8.8 million viewers. The four games in Dayton collectively drew 7.4 million; that’s fewer than 2 million per game. Why would anyone pay the same price for four more of those games that they’re paying for the bigger draws?
MORE: How this freshman class stacks up historically with the best of all time
The concern that such an expansion would damage the NCAA Tournament is not incorrect, but it’s slightly misguided. Even after 15 years of the First Four concept, many who follow tournament passionately (or because they enter the popular office bracket pools) tune in when the first game of the Round of 64 tips off a little after noon on the event’s first Thursday. They’d do the same in an expanded world.
The most damage in an expanded field would be to the integrity of the regular season. Those who are invested now, though, in who gets into the 68-team field, who will be riveted when Ohio State and Indiana play in Columbus on the final Saturday of the regular season, who will watch closely the results that same weekend of the second UCLA-USC showdown and New Mexico’s visit to Mountain West leader Utah State — how much will they care if the teams on the bubble are mediocrities like Baylor or Wake Forest?
The Demon Deacons are 14-13 and have lost six times at home. Charlie Baker will bummed when they don’t make it, one supposes. If only he’d spent a night breaking down brackets with me.